The
condition of the building is known from a report made by Mr. Charles Pink,
Surveyor, and dated September 16th, 1846. The lead on the roof of the
nave and transepts had become "by age cracked in many places and
very uneven." The wet was "continually getting in," so
that the boarding was "nearly rotten," and some of the principal
timbers in a state of decay; the lead for the most part was "past
reparation." It was necessary that all the stone coping to the gables
should be new because, as the report states:-

It
is become very defective, and consequently the wet is admitted, and
runs down the walls, keeping them always in a damp state, and rotting
the timbers, as for instance, see the plates of the roof in the north-east
comer of the north transept.

In
the nave, things were no better.

One
oak tie beam nearly over the south and north entrances is rotten for
four feet from the south end, and is not safe; a new tie must be inserted
in its place of Quebec oak.

And
again:-

The
north end of a beam near the organ is decayed and requires to be strengthened
with iron bars. The ornamental panelling of the roof near the Queen's
Arms, to be restored. The stone battlements of the round tower are quite
decayed: to be replaced by six new ones of Bath stone.

An
inspection showed the roof of the Kingsmill aisle to be "in a very
dilapidated and almost unsafe state." The report goes on to say:-

Some
of the tie beams and rafters are rotten at the ends; the ridge piece
is quite decayed, and the boarding is in a bad state . . . .The roof
should be new, as it is too flat.

The
late Mr. C. P. Darke, who was learning farming at Kingsclere Farm (since
called "Fox Grove," and subsequently-shortly before the house
became the residence of Mr. Wyndham Portal-Kingsclere House"), in
giving an account of his attendance at Church in 1840-41, remarked on
its dilapidated state, shewing how necessary it was to take steps to preserve
the building. The authorities, however, did not begin to move till 1846.

The
chancel, for the fabric of which Lord Bolton was responsible as Lay Rector,
was evidently in much the same state as the nave and transepts, for the
initiative seems to have been taken by Lord Bolton, acting through his
relative, Mr. Orde, previously the Rector of Winslade and Vicar of Kingsclere.
A letter from the architect, Mr. Thos. Hillyer. of Ryde, dated September
9th, 1847, tells us how he was requested to come to Basingstoke to"
receive instructions about repairing the chancel of Kingsclere Church."
This letter is addressed to the Curate-in-Charge - Mr. Tanner - for the
Vicar, Mr. Mitchell, was living at Southsea owing to ill-health. Negotiations
do not appear to have been much hindered through the absence of the Vicar,
for Mr. Tanner knew Kingsclere well, and had been in residence since 1833.
It is through letters addressed to him by the architect that we learn
about the proceedings.

The
Architect visited Hackwood Park several times in September. He then submitted
plans to Lord Bolton, not merely in respect to the transept, but for "a
complete restoration." Evidently he found a ready approval of his
plans, for he writes, "Lady Bolton seems very interested, and well
disposed." The next month seems to have been occupied with correspondence
between the Architect, Mr. Drake one of the Churchwardens of Kingsclere.
and Mr. Orde. At length, on November 23rd, we hear that Mr. Hillyer's
plans for a perfect and worthy restoration of the chancel" have been
"approved at headquarters." Doubts are expressed as to whether
objection would be raised to the expense. "I do not think there will
by Lady Bolton" is the significant sentence which follows. Kingsclere
then had a friend at court of whom the present worshippers in the Church
should think with gratitude.

Mr.
Tanner must have been very busy in the last month of 1847, for now a decision
to restore the whole Church had been arrived at, and the plaster was being
stripped off in places under the supervision of the Curate-in-Charge,
preparatory to Mr. Hillyer's visit from Ryde. In this way was discovered
the remains of a Norman arch "below the beam at the west end."
Some of the Stones of this Norman arch are still seen. In the Victoria
County History of Hants (vol. iv, p.263) the opinion is expressed that
they are "of real twelfth century workmanship removed apparently
from elsewhere." Mr. Hillyer's letter shows that they are part of
an original west window. Mr. Tanner was requested to find if "any
traces of old weather molds" remained up the tower, the object of
the Architect being to raise the pitch of the roof so that it could run
up just under the sills of the small circular windows on the W. and E.
of the tower. The futility of trusting to an inexperienced assistant is
seen now. The roof of the Chancel runs not "just under the sills,"
but across the lower part of the small windows!!

But
now a momentous day was drawing near, January l0th, 1848, when the Vestry
would "consider the report of the Architect on the state of the Church,
and determine on the sum to be contributed towards the repairs required
to be done." Mr. Hillyer writes to Mr. Tanner, who is to preside,
in virtue of his position as Curate-in-charge, discussing what had best
be said, and what best left unsaid. He is evidently suffering from an
attack of nerves, and at the same time anxious that the proposals formulated
through the wise heads of the parson and himself should not be upset.
He writes:-

As
we intend in the restoration to go on the destructive principle and
not the conservative (beyond the tower and Kingsmill aisle) or eclectic.
I am afraid it will alarm some of the sticklers for antiquity.

Another
fear obsessed him. It appears that Mr. Orde was of an economical turn
of mind, for Mr. Hillyer writes that he fears he will "go on the
saving plan "-always the dread of an architect!

The
fateful day arrived, and at. a large meeting in the Church the report
of Mr. Hillyer was considered. Mr. Easton was there on behalf of the Duke
of Wellington, Mr. Lamb and Mr. Dewey represented Lord Bolton; Mr. Orde
also attended. The meeting separated after gifts amounting to £850
had been promised, and a unanimous vote of £1000 on the security
of the church rates had been obtained. A committee was formed to "superintend
the restoration of the Church," namely, the churchwardens, Mr. Drake
and Mr. Platt the Rev. Jas. Tanner, the Rural Dean, Mr. Pole, Rector of
Wolverton, Mr. Holding, Mr. Easton, and Mr Dewey.

It
is this committee with which the Architect had now to deal. By this time
he had made up his mind as to his recommendations, e.g.: -

"I
should proceed on the conservative course in the nave, and complete
the transepts in the Early Decorated. The west front must then be taken
down and rebuilt, and the entire windows of the small chapters as now."

Mr.
Hillyer writes on the 11th to say how pleased he was with what had been
done at Vestry, and "to find such a capital Committee appointed."
But, poor man, he was singing a different song even before the first meeting
of the Committee on the 18th!!! By the 12th the feeling of the members
had been reported to Ryde by Mr. Tanner, and it gave great concern. The
question' at issue were the use to be made of the Kingsmill aisle and
the height of the pewing. Mr. Dewey seems to have been the chief offender
as regards opinions about pewing, and the Architect remarks that his ideas
"will equal ant times of the Puritans." Mr. Hillyer was also
in favour of using the Kingsmill aisle for seating the congregation instead
of shutting it off (as indeed was done) by a glazed partition. Even before
the Committee had met, Mr. Hillyer is indulging in the vain hope that
he will be given

If
the Committee will leave the matter in my hands I will undertake to
make the Church comfortable without violating architectural propriety
or committing errors which in these times of improved taste would entail
odium on all concerned.

Upon
the Committee meeting on January 18th, the claim of the parish, in opposition
to Mr. Kingsmill to the ownership of "the aisle, called Kingsmill's
aisle," was definitely asserted. Hence we do name of the Squire of
Sydmonton among the subscribers! At their meeting on February 7th the
influence of the Puritanical Mr. Dewey is seen, for it was decided "the
pews to be all closed, and of the height of 4ft. by 2ft. 9in.. in width,
and of foreign plain oak."

A
controversy now arose about the position of the organ. The Architect was
of opinion "that the situation in the south transept is the best
for the organ." The authority of Lord Bolton had to be invoked against
those who wished to place it in the chancel. There also developed considerable
difference of opinion between the Architect and the Committee about the
size of the gallery, and the Architect remarks in sorrow, "I am afraid
very low Church ideas exist in some of the Committee" (February 24th,
1848). Such fears were not groundless, for on the 28th the Committee decided
to have closed pews not only in the nave, but also in both transepts,
but of different heights. It was also ordered "that the Kingsmill
aisle should be screened off instead of partitioned at the westernmost
arch in the same way as the chancel is separated from the aisle."

March
had not far advanced before the Committee had so grievously vexed the
righteous soul of Mr. Hillyer that the interference of the Archdeacon
was invoked. The Curate-in-Charge received, on March 4th, the appeal "to
listen to the Archdeacon as setting at rest any further suggestions that
may be made, or I shall never get done."
We hear nothing of the Vicar, who vas resting all this time at Southsea;
he was brought back for burial on February 26th, 1849; and accordingly
the Archdeacon was called upon to put the Committee right where the Architect
thought they were wrong. The Archdeacon did not do all that was expected
of him, for Mr. Hillyer writes, "I wish he had condemned a gallery
and high pews." Indeed, Mr. Hillyer ad to fall back upon the two
clerics on the Committee as his only support. He writes, "I do really
rely on you and Mr. Pole doing all you can to make the restoration as
free from criticism as possible. By trying for what I suggest you are
violating no part of the rubric or leaning to the tractarians" March
4th).

We
do not know how much the lay embers of the Committee knew of these efforts
of the Architect, but they were in vain. Neither the Archdeacon, the Rural
Dean, or the Curate-in-Charge could exercise a restraining influence on
the five lay members of the Committee of seven. The Architect seems to
have finally given up the hope of getting his own way towards the end
of March, it he writes on the 25th:-

The
matter of blocking up the arch and the position, etc., of the font I
shall leave in the hands of the Committee. I regret the want of perception
of the beautiful that exists in some parties.

With
a final wail over the pewing he concludes his letter

The
pews in the tower I suppose must be 4ft., or shall we run the risk of
keeping them 2ft. 10in. high?

The
lay majority on the Committee continued to attend the meetings very regularly,
and the clerical minority learnt the truth of Mr. Birrells recent cruel
words - "minorities must suffer."

Acts
of vandalism proceeded apace, e.g., on April 28th it was ordered that
"the east window in the north transept be stopped up." This
is one of the most interesting windows (Early English) in the Church.
It has only recently been opened again and the mullions restored The late
Rector of Pangbourne, Mr. Finch, perceived its beauty, and started the
project with a donation of £10.

As
the spring of 1848 advanced, the work at Kingsclere Church proceeded in
earnest. The Curate-in-Charge continued his correspondence with the. Architect.
From this it is seen that no provision had been made in the contract for
the removal or protection of the monuments. This was a source of anxiety
to Mr. Tanner. The magnificent alabaster tomb to the memory of Sir Henry
and Lady Bridget Kingsmill escaped injury except that the sword lying
by Sir Henry's side was broken. He also notices the charming effect when
the workmen had removed an old screen, and the arch opening from thetransept
into the Kingsmill aisle was no longer blocked up. But the Committee was
obdurate, and the Architect had to design another screen!! The Curate-in-Charge
was a busy man that spring, for letters from Ryde show that the Architect
expected him to act as a sort of Clerk of the Works. He is exhorted to
superintend in these words­

I
shall feel obliged if you will look and see the flints are taken out
full six inches, and the walls well wet while they are rebuilding it
(May 19th 1848).

How
Mr. Tanner could attend to the duties of a large parish, comprising as
it did at that time Sydmonton, Ecchinswell, and Kingsclere, while the
Church was being restored passes our understanding.

Meanwhile
the Committee met every month to sign cheques for the contractor and issue
directions. On June 26th the following decision is recorded:

That
the interior of the eastern arch of the south transept be filled with
a glazed parclose to the same height as the chancel.

At
this meeting another effort was made to obtain some con­cession to
the Architect's views about the pewing, and we see the result from the
minutes:-

It was directed that the pews in the nave should be 2ft. 10in. instead
of 2ft. 9in.; and the pews in the transepts should be 3ft. 9in. instead
of 4ft., and that such latter range do extend as far as the projection
of the tower piers. The remainder of the space under the tower set apart
for sittings as per plan to be fitted with movable benches, low, with
close backs."

This
was indeed a concession, for the doors of the pews up to 1847 measured
5ff. 1lin. One is still used in the belfry. Three more meetings of the
Committee were held during 1848, when various matters were dealt with
- the entrances to the vaults, the position of the font, prayer desk,
and pulpit, the "ridge lead on the nave and transepts," and
"the position of the mural tablets." We are not surprised, having
regard to the absence of the Architect at Ryde, and necessarily inefficient
assistance of his improvised Clerk of the Works at Kingsclere, a busy
clergyman with many responsibilities, that by the end of November the
Committee were having trouble with the contractor. It is reported that
it was necessary to give notice to him "of his liability to a penalty
of £100, and the other responsibilities attendant on the non-performance
of the contract" (November 27th). At this meeting it was resolved

...that
the rim of the western arch be restored as per the Architect's estimate
of £7. 8s. and that six ventilators be introduced as required."

The
winter of 1848 sped away and still the work at theChurch had not been
finished. However, on .January 8th, 1849, the contractor, Mr. Balding
"attended the Committee, and engaged to complete the whole of the
works contained in his contract, and the several additions thereto on
the first day March next."

In
February additional donations were announced. Among these is the following:-"Wyndham
Portal Esqre., decorations and additions to the Lanthorn, £30."
His grandson, Sir William Portal, Bart., last year went to the expense
of renovating this work. March 5th the contractor is "on the carpet"
for not fulfilling his contract.. The winter of 1847-1848 was a very wet
one, but at the next meeting (April 2nd) it was found possible to fix
upon May 15th as the day "for the opening of the Church." Great
must have been the hurry to be ready for this auspicious event, for as
late as May 7th a letter was sent to Mr. Hillyer. "The Committee,"
it states, "wish your attention to the following points:-

1.-The
non-completion of the font.
2.-The non-completion of the heating apparatus.
3.-The benches not finished.
4.-The Communion Table and chairs.
5.-The weather vane.
6.-The rail in front of the gallery.
7.-Handle, etc., inside of the door in the chancel aisle.
8.-The decalogue not completed."

Difficulties
such as these were overcome or passed over, and the Church was duly re-opened
with great rejoicings on Tuesday, May 15th, 1849, after an .expenditure,
exclusive of the chancel, off £2,726. 6s. 10d.

We
of the present day do not share to the full in these rejoicings. Some
of us are "sticklers for antiquity." We mourn the loss of the
old W. doorway and window of the Perpendicular Period, and of the lancet
windows giving much needed light at the E. end of the nave. The porches
of both N. and S. doors of the nave have gone, and even the Norman doorway
on the S. side is covered in. The failure to preserve the monuments in
the N. transept and memorial slabs in the chancel invokes displeasure.
The encaustic tiles were mostly thrown away. It has taken the present
incumbent many years to get together a collection, of varied design, dug
up in various places.
Those of the parishioners who are interested in preserving the building
from decay look back with regret to the Architect's disuse of tie beams
for his new roof. The roof has since spread, and rests upon the flint
casing which he built round the old rabble walls. In using the old mullions
for ties the casing was not properly keyed to these walls. On the S. side
of the nave the casing is coming away from the wall, and some day will
come down with a run. The nave roof has recently been tied together with
iron rods to prevent its further spreading. The lead on the roof is in
tar too large strips. When the Diocesan Architect visited the Church he
said the lead must all be taken off and relaid. It often leaks, and repeatedly
slips, the weight tearing-through the nails. The plaster used inside the
building is of an inferior quality. Its blotchy appearance spoilt the
appearance of the church until recently, when a colour-wash, recommended
by Professor Lethaby, was adopted. Not only inferior workmanship, but
inferior material was used when casing the Church with flint. As a consequence,
last year the damp was penetrating through the tower wall, 3ft. thick,
on the south side.

Successful
constructional achievement can hardly be expected when we remember that
Mr. Hillyer was a very busy man (he restored or built over forty Churches),
and he had no Clerk of the Works except the parson, who had no practical
knowledge, and could not superintend the work as well as serve a large
parish. The Committee were very diligent, and had a keen sense of their
responsibility. Mr. Drake was present at every one of the twenty-two meetings,
Mr. Pole and Mr. Holding only missed one meeting, Mr. Tanner and Mr. Dewey
were only absent twice. Mr. Platt had a long way to come from his farm
at Canon Heath, and so missed seven meetings. Mr. Easton, with his many
duties as agent to the Duke of Wellington, could not attend very regularly.
Our sympathy is with these gentlemen, because they suffered from the neglect
of their forefathers, who had allowed the Church to fall into the state
described by Mr. Pink. Had Canon 85, which regulates the duties of Church-wardens,
been obeyed, beautiful windows, doorways, and timbers of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries would not have become ruinous, and regarded as
beyond reparation in 1848. The moral of the preceding pages seems to be
this:

The
Churchwardens are, in justice, bound to effect the requisite repairs,
however slight and trifling they may be: for the practice, unfortunately
but too common, of leaving this to be done in a future year is most
reprehensible and unjust, as it must ultimately increase the cost of
repairs, and throw on the parishioners of a future period a burden which
ought to be borne by the parishioners of the current year" (Prideaux,
p.82).

A.
T. Finch.
Kingsclere Vicarage,
July 1914

N.B.-In spite of all the imperfections of the restoration
in 1848,
Kingsclere Church remains one of the most interesting
and imposing structures in Hampshire.